Draft 2008 California 303(d)/305(b) Integrated Report

Supporting Information

Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin Region

Water Body Name:	Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel
Water Body ID:	CAR7194700019990205111415
Water Body Type:	River & Stream

DECISION ID	5970
Pollutant:	Pathogens
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2010
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pathogens consistent with Listing Policy section 6.1.5.9. One line however is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data but is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. There were 8 exceedances of the Basin Plan Enterococcus water quality objectives. When compared to the Basin Plan 100 MPN/100 ml Enterococcus threshold for RECI beneficial use, there were 5 exceedances out of 6 total water samples taken over all the sampling years. When compared to the Basin Plan 500 MPN/100ml Enterococcus threshold for RECII beneficial use, there were 3 exceedances out of 6 water samples taken. No samples exceeded the Basin Plan E. coli water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. At a minimum, 5 of 6 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan Enterococcus water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 5970

LOE ID:	5113
Pollutant:	Escherichia coli (E. Coli)
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Non-Contact Recreation
Number of Samples:	6
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Six quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at two locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan:In waters designated for noncontact water recreation (REC II) the maximum allowable E. coli density is 2000 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. Ave 52 was sampled in May and October 2002.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
LOE ID:	4896
Pollutant:	Enterococcus
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Water Contact Recreation
Number of Samples:	6
Number of Exceedances:	5
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at 2 locations along the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples , 5 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 5/09/2002, 10/03/2002, 4/10/2003, and 11/04/2003 from the two different locations (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan:In waters designated for water contact recreation (REC I) the maximum allowable Enterococcus density is 100 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. Ave 52 was sampled in May and October 2002.The exceedences were found in samples collected from 5/09/2002 through 11/04/2003.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
LOE ID:	4906
Pollutant:	Enterococcus
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Non-Contact Recreation
Number of Samples:	6
Number of Exceedances:	3
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003, and 10/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, 3 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 10/03/2002, 4/10/2003, and 11/04/2003 from both locations (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan:In waters designated for noncontact water recreation (REC II) the maximum allowable Enterococcus density is 500 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples were usually collected in May and October. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in 2002. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 10/03/2002 through 11/04/2003.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
LOE ID:	4664
Pollutant:	Pathogens
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Not Recorded
Beneficial Use:	Water Contact Recreation
Number of Samples:	0
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Not Specified
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.
Data Reference:	Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Unspecified
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)
Evaluation Guideline:	Unspecified
Guideline Reference:	Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)
Spatial Representation:	Unspecified
Temporal Representation:	Unspecified
Environmental Conditions:	Unspecified
QAPP Information:	Unspecified
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID:	5110
Pollutant:	Escherichia coli (E. Coli)
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Water Contact Recreation
Number of Samples:	6
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at two locations along the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan:In waters designated for water contact recreation (REC I) the maximum allowable E. coli density is 400 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. Ave 52 was sampled in May and October 2002.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	5352
Pollutant:	Toxaphene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006)
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2019
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Toxaphene consistent with Listing Policy section 6.1.5.9. The results of one line of evidence are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in another line of evidence. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. There were twelve fish tissue samples that exceeded water quality objectives. When compared to the OEHHA 6.1 ug/kg threshold for consumption, there were 7 exceedances out of 7 total fish tissue samples taken over all the sampling years. When compared to the NAS 100 ug/kg threshold for aquatic life, there were 6 exceedances out of 12 total fish tissue samples taken. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. At a minimum, 6 of 7 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 5352

LOE ID:	2877
Pollutant:	Toxaphene
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix:	Tissue
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	8
Number of Exceedances:	3
Data and Information Type:	Not Specified
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Three out of 8 samples exceeded. Four whole fish composite samples of red shiner, 3 whole fish composite samples of tilapia, and one composite sample of redbelly tilapia were collected. Red shiner were collected in 1992, 1995, and 2000-01. Tilapia were collected in 1996, 1999, and 2002. Redbelly tilapia were collected in 1995. The guideline was exceeded in 1996 tilapia and 2000-01 red shiner (TSMP, 2002).
Data Reference:	Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Colorado River Basin RWQCB Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be presenting concentration that adversely affect beneficial uses.
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Evaluation Guideline:	100 ng/g [NAS Guideline (whole fish)].
Guideline Reference:	Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
Spatial Representation:	The Coachella Valley Storm Channel from Lincoln Street to the outlet into the Salton Sea only. One station located at foot of Lincoln Street was sampled and was in exceedance.
Temporal Representation:	Samples were collected annually in 1992, 1995-96, 1999, and 2000-02.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1992-93 and 1994-95 Data Reports. Environmental Chemistry Quality Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, 1996-2000. Department of Fish and Game. Environmental Chemistry Quality Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, 2001-2002. Department of Fish and Game.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID:	5436
Pollutant:	Toxaphene
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix:	Tissue
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	7
Data and Information Type:	Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. Two fish fillet samples and 3 whole fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 3 fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 3 fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples collected at 1 location exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. Exceedances were found in; 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/21/1986; 1 channel catfish single fish fillet sample collected on 10/20/1987; 1 carp single fish fillet sample collected on 10/20/1987; 2 tilapia whole fish composite samples collected on 10/30/1996, and 12/08/1999; 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample collected on 10/24/1995, and; 1 red shiner whole fish composite sample collected on 11/06/2000 (TSMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) database. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Sacramento, CA.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 6.1 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).
Guideline Reference:	Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.
Temporal Representation:	Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 5/21/1986 through 11/06/2000.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
LOE ID:	5655
Pollutant:	Toxaphene
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix:	Tissue
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	12
Number of Exceedances:	6
Data and Information Type:	Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 3 fish fillet samples and 3 whole fish samples collected at 1 location exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. Exceedances were found in; 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/21/1986; 1 channel catfish single fish fillet sample collected on 10/20/1987; 1 carp single fish fillet sample collected on 10/20/1987; 1 tilapia whole fish composite sample collected on 10/30/1996; 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample collected on 10/24/1995, and; 1 red shiner whole fish composite sample collected on 11/06/2000 (TSMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) database. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Sacramento, CA.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).
Guideline Reference:	National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.
Temporal Representation:	Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. Exceedances were found in samples collected from 5/21/1986 through 11/06/2000.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

DECISION ID	8283
Pollutant:	.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8283

LOE ID:	4997
Pollutant:	.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8285
Pollutant:	.alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8285

LOE ID:	4997
Pollutant:	.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
LOE ID:	4994
Pollutant:	.alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | Aldrin | Chlordane | DDT | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Mercury
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide, and 1.4 ug/l Mercury (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8284
Pollutant:	.beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8284

LOE ID:	4997
Pollutant:	.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8286
Pollutant:	.beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting aqauatic life uses. None of 7 water samples exceeded the Calfornia Toxcis Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. These does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8286

LOE ID:	4994
Pollutant:	.alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | Aldrin | Chlordane | DDT | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Mercury
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide, and 1.4 ug/l Mercury (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
LOE ID:	4997
Pollutant:	.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8281
Pollutant:	1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8281

LOE ID:	4995
Pollutant:	1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 11 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8332
Pollutant:	1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8332

LOE ID:	4998
Pollutant:	1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8319
Pollutant:	1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinyldine Chloride
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8319

LOE ID:	4999
Pollutant:	1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinyldine Chloride | Benzene | Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) | Benzo[a]anthracene | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	6
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8297
Pollutant:	1,2-Dichloroethane
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8297

LOE ID:	4997
Pollutant:	.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8282
Pollutant:	Acenaphthene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8282

LOE ID:	4997
Pollutant:	.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8299
Pollutant:	Aldrin
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8299

LOE ID:	5571
Pollutant:	Aldrin
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix:	Tissue
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	12
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) database. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Sacramento, CA.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).
Guideline Reference:	National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.
Temporal Representation:	Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
LOE ID:	4994
Pollutant:	.alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | Aldrin | Chlordane | DDT | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Mercury
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide, and 1.4 ug/l Mercury (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8289
Pollutant:	Anthracene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8289

LOE ID:	4997
Pollutant:	.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8279
Pollutant:	Arsenic
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One line of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. The results of this line of evidence will be combined with the results from another line of evidence in the Final Use Rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 9 water samples exceeded the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service criteria. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 3 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue criteria. None of 8 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8279

LOE ID:	5104
Pollutant:	Arsenic | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Mercury | Nickel
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Sediment
Matrix:	Sediment
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 149 mg/kg Copper, 128 mg/kg Lead, 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, and 48.6 mg/kg Nickel (Macdonald et al, 2000).
Guideline Reference:	Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
LOE ID:	5528
Pollutant:	Arsenic
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix:	Tissue
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	3
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Five fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the analyte was not measured in the samples. The 3 whole fish samples that were acceptable were collected on 9/16/1992, 12/08/1999 and 11/06/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) database. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Sacramento, CA.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 1 mg/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).
Guideline Reference:	Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.
Temporal Representation:	Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
LOE ID:	5280
Pollutant:	Arsenic
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Sediment
Matrix:	Sediment
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	1
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the channel, collected on 10/28/2001. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 33 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).
Guideline Reference:	Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected at the following Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel location: USGS Station No. 10259540 located near Mecca, Ca.
Temporal Representation:	One sample was collected on 10/28/2001.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.
	Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
LOE ID:	4992
Pollutant:	Arsenic | Chromium (total)
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 340 ug/l Arsenic, and 1724 ug/l Chromium (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
LOE ID:	5001
Pollutant:	Arsenic | Copper
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	9
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USFWS Biological Effects Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Effects Criteria for the protection of aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 0.25 mg/l Arsenic, and 15 mg/l Copper (USDOI, 1998).
Guideline Reference:	Guidelines for Interpretation of the Biological Effect of Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment. US Department of Interior report.
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples were usually collected in May and October. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8339
Pollutant:	Benzene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8339

LOE ID:	4999
Pollutant:	1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinyldine Chloride | Benzene | Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) | Benzo[a]anthracene | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	6
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8316
Pollutant:	Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 8 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8316

LOE ID:	4999
Pollutant:	1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinyldine Chloride | Benzene | Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) | Benzo[a]anthracene | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	6
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
LOE ID:	4959
Pollutant:	Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs)
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Sediment
Matrix:	Sediment
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	8
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Eight sediment quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) of 1450 ug/kg for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects (MacDonald et al, 2000).
Guideline Reference:	Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples were usually collected in May and October. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May of 2002 only.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8290
Pollutant:	Benzo[a]anthracene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 8 sediment samples exceeded the sediment guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8290

LOE ID:	4999
Pollutant:	1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinyldine Chloride | Benzene | Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) | Benzo[a]anthracene | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	6
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
LOE ID:	5103
Pollutant:	Benzo[a]anthracene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Naphthalene | Phenanthrene | Pyrene
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Sediment
Matrix:	Sediment
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	8
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) Criteria for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).
Guideline Reference:	Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8313
Pollutant:	Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8313

LOE ID:	4999
Pollutant:	1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinyldine Chloride | Benzene | Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) | Benzo[a]anthracene | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	6
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8314
Pollutant:	Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8314

LOE ID:	4999
Pollutant:	1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinyldine Chloride | Benzene | Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) | Benzo[a]anthracene | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	6
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8292
Pollutant:	Bromoform
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8292

LOE ID:	4997
Pollutant:	.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8306
Pollutant:	Cadmium
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One line of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. The results of this line of evidence will be combined with the results from another line of evidence in the Final Use Rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 9 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and none of 8 sediment samples exceeded sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8306

LOE ID:	5281
Pollutant:	Cadmium
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Sediment
Matrix:	Sediment
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	1
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the channel, collected on 10/28/2001. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).
Data Reference:	Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 4.98 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).
Guideline Reference:	Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected at the following Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel location: USGS Station No. 10259540 located near Mecca, Ca.
Temporal Representation:	One sample was collected on 10/28/2001.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID:	4993
Pollutant:	Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | Zinc
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	9
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Cadmium, Lead, Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
LOE ID:	5104
Pollutant:	Arsenic | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Mercury | Nickel
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Sediment
Matrix:	Sediment
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 149 mg/kg Copper, 128 mg/kg Lead, 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, and 48.6 mg/kg Nickel (Macdonald et al, 2000).
Guideline Reference:	Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8318
Pollutant:	Carbon tetrachloride
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8318

LOE ID:	4999
Pollutant:	1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinyldine Chloride | Benzene | Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) | Benzo[a]anthracene | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	6
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8300
Pollutant:	Chlordane
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. One of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8300

LOE ID:	4994
Pollutant:	.alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | Aldrin | Chlordane | DDT | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Mercury
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide, and 1.4 ug/l Mercury (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
LOE ID:	5519
Pollutant:	Chlordane
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix:	Tissue
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	12
Number of Exceedances:	1
Data and Information Type:	Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 1 fish fillet sample exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. The exceedance was found in 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/21/1986 (TSMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) database. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Sacramento, CA.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 5.6 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).
Guideline Reference:	Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.
Temporal Representation:	Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. An exceedance was found in one sample collected on 5/21/1986.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
LOE ID:	5579
Pollutant:	Chlordane
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix:	Tissue
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	12
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) database. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Sacramento, CA.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).
Guideline Reference:	National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.
Temporal Representation:	Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

DECISION ID	8293
Pollutant:	Chlorobenzene (mono)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8293

LOE ID:	4997
Pollutant:	.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8322
Pollutant:	Chlorpyrifos
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8322

LOE ID:	5520
Pollutant:	Chlorpyrifos
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix:	Tissue
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	12
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) database. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Sacramento, CA.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 10000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).
Guideline Reference:	Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.
Temporal Representation:	Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

DECISION ID	8280
Pollutant:	Chromium (total)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One line of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. The results of this line of evidence will be combined with the results from another line of evidence in the Final Use Rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 8 sediment samples exceeded the sediment qualty guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8280

LOE ID:	4992
Pollutant:	Arsenic | Chromium (total)
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 340 ug/l Arsenic, and 1724 ug/l Chromium (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
LOE ID:	5104
Pollutant:	Arsenic | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Mercury | Nickel
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Sediment
Matrix:	Sediment
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 149 mg/kg Copper, 128 mg/kg Lead, 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, and 48.6 mg/kg Nickel (Macdonald et al, 2000).
Guideline Reference:	Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
LOE ID:	5243
Pollutant:	Chromium (total)
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Sediment
Matrix:	Sediment
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	1
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the river on 10/28/2001. This sample did not exceeded the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 111 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).
Guideline Reference:	Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected at the following Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel location: USGS Station No. 10259540 located near Mecca, Ca.
Temporal Representation:	One sample was collected. A sample was collected on 10/28/2001.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.
	Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.

DECISION ID	8310
Pollutant:	Chrysene (C1-C4)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 8 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8310

LOE ID:	5103
Pollutant:	Benzo[a]anthracene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Naphthalene | Phenanthrene | Pyrene
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Sediment
Matrix:	Sediment
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	8
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) Criteria for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).
Guideline Reference:	Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
LOE ID:	4999
Pollutant:	1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinyldine Chloride | Benzene | Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) | Benzo[a]anthracene | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	6
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8307
Pollutant:	Copper
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One line of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. The results of this line of evidence will be combined with the results from another line of evidence in the Final Use Rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 9 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 9 water samples exceeded the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service criteria. None of 8 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8307

LOE ID:	5104
Pollutant:	Arsenic | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Mercury | Nickel
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Sediment
Matrix:	Sediment
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 149 mg/kg Copper, 128 mg/kg Lead, 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, and 48.6 mg/kg Nickel (Macdonald et al, 2000).
Guideline Reference:	Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
LOE ID:	5001
Pollutant:	Arsenic | Copper
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	9
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USFWS Biological Effects Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Effects Criteria for the protection of aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 0.25 mg/l Arsenic, and 15 mg/l Copper (USDOI, 1998).
Guideline Reference:	Guidelines for Interpretation of the Biological Effect of Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment. US Department of Interior report.
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples were usually collected in May and October. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
LOE ID:	4919
Pollutant:	Copper
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	9
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples were usually collected in May and October. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
LOE ID:	5283
Pollutant:	Copper
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Sediment
Matrix:	Sediment
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	1
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the channel, collected on 10/28/2001. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 149 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).
Guideline Reference:	Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected at the following Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel location: USGS Station No. 10259540 located near Mecca, Ca.
Temporal Representation:	One sample was collected on 10/28/2001.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.
	Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.

DECISION ID	8323
Pollutant:	Diazinon
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game criteria. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8323

LOE ID:	5521
Pollutant:	Diazinon
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix:	Tissue
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	12
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) database. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Sacramento, CA.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 300 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).
Guideline Reference:	Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.
Temporal Representation:	Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
LOE ID:	5002
Pollutant:	Diazinon
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDFG Hazardous Assessment Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.16 ug/l for the protection of aquatic life uses (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).
Guideline Reference:	Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8291
Pollutant:	Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8291

LOE ID:	4999
Pollutant:	1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinyldine Chloride | Benzene | Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) | Benzo[a]anthracene | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	6
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8294
Pollutant:	Dichlorobromomethane
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8294

LOE ID:	4997
Pollutant:	.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8324
Pollutant:	Dichloromethane
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. This line of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. The sample did not exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8324

LOE ID:	5000
Pollutant:	Dichloromethane | Methyl bromide | Vinyl chloride
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	1
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	One water quality sample was generally collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 4000 ug/l Methyl Bromide, 1600 ug/l Dichloromethane, and 525 ug/l Vinyl Chloride (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	One water sample was collected. A water sample was collected and analyzed in 5/2002.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8287
Pollutant:	Endosulfan
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office Of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment or National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guidelines and these do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8287

LOE ID:	5522
Pollutant:	Endosulfan
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix:	Tissue
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	12
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) database. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Sacramento, CA.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 20,000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).
Guideline Reference:	Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.
Temporal Representation:	Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
LOE ID:	5605
Pollutant:	Endosulfan
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix:	Tissue
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	12
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) database. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Sacramento, CA.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).
Guideline Reference:	National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.
Temporal Representation:	Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

DECISION ID	8288
Pollutant:	Endosulfan sulfate
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8288

LOE ID:	4997
Pollutant:	.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8301
Pollutant:	Endrin
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organism from this water. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment or Nation Academy of Sciences fish tissue guidelines. None of 9 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8301

LOE ID:	5613
Pollutant:	Endrin
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix:	Tissue
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	12
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) database. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Sacramento, CA.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).
Guideline Reference:	National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.
Temporal Representation:	Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
LOE ID:	5102
Pollutant:	Dieldrin | Endrin | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Sediment
Matrix:	Sediment
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	9
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Nine sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, and 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) (Macdonald et al, 2000).
Guideline Reference:	Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Nine sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location in. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
LOE ID:	4998
Pollutant:	1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
LOE ID:	4994
Pollutant:	.alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | Aldrin | Chlordane | DDT | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Mercury
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide, and 1.4 ug/l Mercury (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
LOE ID:	5523
Pollutant:	Endrin
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix:	Tissue
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	12
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) database. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Sacramento, CA.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 1000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).
Guideline Reference:	Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.
Temporal Representation:	Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

DECISION ID	8302
Pollutant:	Endrin aldehyde
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8302

LOE ID:	4998
Pollutant:	1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8334
Pollutant:	Ethion
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office Of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8334

LOE ID:	5524
Pollutant:	Ethion
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix:	Tissue
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	12
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) database. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Sacramento, CA.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 2000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).
Guideline Reference:	Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.
Temporal Representation:	Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

DECISION ID	8329
Pollutant:	Ethylbenzene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8329

LOE ID:	4998
Pollutant:	1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8311
Pollutant:	Fluoranthene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 8 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8311

LOE ID:	5103
Pollutant:	Benzo[a]anthracene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Naphthalene | Phenanthrene | Pyrene
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Sediment
Matrix:	Sediment
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	8
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) Criteria for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).
Guideline Reference:	Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
LOE ID:	4998
Pollutant:	1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8312
Pollutant:	Fluorene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 8 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8312

LOE ID:	5103
Pollutant:	Benzo[a]anthracene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Naphthalene | Phenanthrene | Pyrene
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Sediment
Matrix:	Sediment
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	8
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) Criteria for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).
Guideline Reference:	Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
LOE ID:	4998
Pollutant:	1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8303
Pollutant:	Heptachlor
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8303

LOE ID:	4994
Pollutant:	.alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | Aldrin | Chlordane | DDT | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Mercury
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide, and 1.4 ug/l Mercury (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
LOE ID:	5623
Pollutant:	Heptachlor
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix:	Tissue
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	12
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) database. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Sacramento, CA.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).
Guideline Reference:	National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.
Temporal Representation:	Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

DECISION ID	8304
Pollutant:	Heptachlor epoxide
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. None of 2 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8304

LOE ID:	5525
Pollutant:	Heptachlor epoxide
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix:	Tissue
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	2
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Five fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentrations. The 2 whole fish samples that were acceptable were collected on 12/08/1999 and 11/06/2000. Of these total samples, neither exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) database. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Sacramento, CA.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 4 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).
Guideline Reference:	Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.
Temporal Representation:	Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
LOE ID:	4994
Pollutant:	.alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | Aldrin | Chlordane | DDT | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Mercury
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide, and 1.4 ug/l Mercury (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
LOE ID:	5632
Pollutant:	Heptachlor epoxide
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix:	Tissue
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	12
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) database. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Sacramento, CA.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).
Guideline Reference:	National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.
Temporal Representation:	Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

DECISION ID	8335
Pollutant:	Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office Of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8335

LOE ID:	5526
Pollutant:	Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix:	Tissue
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	12
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) database. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Sacramento, CA.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 20 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).
Guideline Reference:	Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.
Temporal Representation:	Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

DECISION ID	8330
Pollutant:	Hexachlorobutadiene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8330

LOE ID:	4998
Pollutant:	1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8328
Pollutant:	Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) (mixture)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8328

LOE ID:	6732
Pollutant:	Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) (mixture)
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix:	Tissue
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	12
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) database. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Sacramento, CA.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).
Guideline Reference:	National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.
Temporal Representation:	Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

DECISION ID	8317
Pollutant:	Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8317

LOE ID:	4999
Pollutant:	1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinyldine Chloride | Benzene | Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) | Benzo[a]anthracene | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	6
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8308
Pollutant:	Lead
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One line of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. The results of this line of evidence will be combined with the results from another line of evidence in the Final Use Rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 9 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 8 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8308

LOE ID:	5104
Pollutant:	Arsenic | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Mercury | Nickel
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Sediment
Matrix:	Sediment
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 149 mg/kg Copper, 128 mg/kg Lead, 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, and 48.6 mg/kg Nickel (Macdonald et al, 2000).
Guideline Reference:	Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
LOE ID:	4993
Pollutant:	Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | Zinc
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	9
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Cadmium, Lead, Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
LOE ID:	5284
Pollutant:	Lead
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Sediment
Matrix:	Sediment
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	1
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the channel, collected on 10/28/2001. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 128 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).
Guideline Reference:	Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected at the following Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel location: USGS Station No. 10259540 located near Mecca, Ca.
Temporal Representation:	One sample was collected on 10/28/2001.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.
	Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.

DECISION ID	8327
Pollutant:	Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 9 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment or National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8327

LOE ID:	5102
Pollutant:	Dieldrin | Endrin | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Sediment
Matrix:	Sediment
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	9
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Nine sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, and 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) (Macdonald et al, 2000).
Guideline Reference:	Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Nine sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location in. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
LOE ID:	5527
Pollutant:	Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix:	Tissue
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	12
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) database. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Sacramento, CA.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 30 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).
Guideline Reference:	Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.
Temporal Representation:	Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
LOE ID:	6740
Pollutant:	Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix:	Tissue
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	12
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) database. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Sacramento, CA.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).
Guideline Reference:	National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.
Temporal Representation:	Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

DECISION ID	8305
Pollutant:	Mercury
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded California Toxics Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 7 sediment samples exceeded sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8305

LOE ID:	4998
Pollutant:	1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
LOE ID:	4994
Pollutant:	.alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | Aldrin | Chlordane | DDT | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Mercury
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide, and 1.4 ug/l Mercury (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
LOE ID:	5104
Pollutant:	Arsenic | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Mercury | Nickel
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Sediment
Matrix:	Sediment
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 149 mg/kg Copper, 128 mg/kg Lead, 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, and 48.6 mg/kg Nickel (Macdonald et al, 2000).
Guideline Reference:	Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8325
Pollutant:	Methyl bromide
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. This line of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. The sample did not exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8325

LOE ID:	5000
Pollutant:	Dichloromethane | Methyl bromide | Vinyl chloride
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	1
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	One water quality sample was generally collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 4000 ug/l Methyl Bromide, 1600 ug/l Dichloromethane, and 525 ug/l Vinyl Chloride (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	One water sample was collected. A water sample was collected and analyzed in 5/2002.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8309
Pollutant:	Nickel
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 9 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 9 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 7 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8309

LOE ID:	4993
Pollutant:	Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | Zinc
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	9
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Cadmium, Lead, Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
LOE ID:	4996
Pollutant:	Nickel
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	9
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 4600 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
LOE ID:	5104
Pollutant:	Arsenic | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Mercury | Nickel
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Sediment
Matrix:	Sediment
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 149 mg/kg Copper, 128 mg/kg Lead, 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, and 48.6 mg/kg Nickel (Macdonald et al, 2000).
Guideline Reference:	Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8315
Pollutant:	Pyrene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 8 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8315

LOE ID:	4998
Pollutant:	1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
LOE ID:	5103
Pollutant:	Benzo[a]anthracene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Naphthalene | Phenanthrene | Pyrene
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Sediment
Matrix:	Sediment
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	8
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) Criteria for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).
Guideline Reference:	Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8338
Pollutant:	Selenium
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The results of one of the fish tissue lines of evidence will not be used in the Final Use Rating because the data appear to be identical to the data in another line of evidence. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 9 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water qualty objective. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8338

LOE ID:	4956
Pollutant:	Selenium
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	9
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: For all surface waters that are tributaries to the Salton Sea, a one hour average value of selenium shall not exceed .02 mg/L (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near Ave 52, and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
LOE ID:	5530
Pollutant:	Selenium
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix:	Tissue
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	12
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal (TSMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) database. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Sacramento, CA.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 7400 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).
Guideline Reference:	Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
	Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.
Temporal Representation:	Fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in 1987. One tilapia fish composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly & mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
LOE ID:	5529
Pollutant:	Selenium
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix:	Tissue
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	8
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Chemical monitoring of sediments
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Downloadable data of chemical analysis results from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) webpage, containing program data for the years 1978-2000. Data pertaining specifically to Region 7 was downloaded from the SWRCB website in August 2007 (TSMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) database. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Sacramento, CA.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 2 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).
Guideline Reference:	Redwood Creek Rotary Screw Trap Downstream Migration Study Redwood Valley, Humboldt County, California April 4 - August 5, 2000. Draft Report
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.
Temporal Representation:	Fish samples were generally collected and analyzed annually from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Samples were not collected every sampling round.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	Field procedures described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. Used CDFG's Laboratory Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

DECISION ID	8320
Pollutant:	Silver
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 9 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8320

LOE ID:	4993
Pollutant:	Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | Zinc
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	9
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Cadmium, Lead, Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8331
Pollutant:	Tetrachloroethylene/PCE
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8331

LOE ID:	4998
Pollutant:	1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8333
Pollutant:	Trichloroethylene/TCE
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8333

LOE ID:	4998
Pollutant:	1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8326
Pollutant:	Vinyl chloride
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. This line of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. The sample did not exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8326

LOE ID:	5000
Pollutant:	Dichloromethane | Methyl bromide | Vinyl chloride
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	1
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	One water quality sample was generally collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 4000 ug/l Methyl Bromide, 1600 ug/l Dichloromethane, and 525 ug/l Vinyl Chloride (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	One water sample was collected. A water sample was collected and analyzed in 5/2002.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8321
Pollutant:	Zinc
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One line of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. The results of this line of evidence will be combined with the results from another line of evidence in the Final Use Rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 9 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 8 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline.These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8321

LOE ID:	4993
Pollutant:	Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | Zinc
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	9
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Cadmium, Lead, Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
LOE ID:	4967
Pollutant:	Zinc
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Sediment
Matrix:	Sediment
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven sediment quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) of 459 mg/kg for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects (Macdonald et al, 2000).
Guideline Reference:	Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
LOE ID:	5285
Pollutant:	Zinc
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Sediment
Matrix:	Sediment
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	1
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the channel, collected on 10/28/2001. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 459 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).
Guideline Reference:	Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected at the following Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel location: USGS Station No. 10259540 located near Mecca, Ca.
Temporal Representation:	One sample was collected on 10/28/2001.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.
	Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.

DECISION ID	8295
Pollutant:	m-Dichlorobenzene
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8295

LOE ID:	4997
Pollutant:	.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8296
Pollutant:	p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8296

LOE ID:	4997
Pollutant:	.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8336
Pollutant:	pH
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 32 samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8336

LOE ID:	5333
Pollutant:	pH
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	None
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	23
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Twenty-three water quality measurements were taken at 1 location along the channel, generally collected from 10/1963 through 9/2002. Of these total measurements , none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (USGS, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Measurements were collected at the following Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel location: USGS Station No. 10259540 located near Mecca, Ca.
Temporal Representation:	Twenty-three measurements were collected. Measurements were collected from 10/1963 through 9/2002. Nineteen measurements were collected from 1963-1969, no measurements were collected from 1970-1979, no measurements were collected from 1980-1989, one measurement was collected from 1990-1999, and 3 measurements were collected from 2000-2002.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.
	Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
LOE ID:	5116
Pollutant:	pH
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	9
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Nine water quality measurements were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total measurements, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Measurements were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Nine measurements were collected. Measurements were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location in May and October of 2002.Measurements were collected in May and Octboer 2002 at the Avenue 52 location.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8337
Pollutant:	ppDDE
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. This line of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. The sample exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of one water sample exceeded the California Toxic Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8337

LOE ID:	4856
Pollutant:	ppDDE
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	1
Number of Exceedances:	1
Data and Information Type:	Not Specified
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven water samples were taken at one location on the river. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The one acceptable water sample, collected near the outlet to the Salton Sea location on 4/10/2003, exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 0.00059 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from the near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The exceedence was found in a sample collected on 11/04/2003.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8276
Pollutant:	DDT
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2021
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. No water samples exceed the water quality objective. When compared to the California Toxics Rule 1.1 ug/l threshold for aquatic life, there were no exceedances out of 7 total water samples taken over all the sampling years. There were 13 fish tissue samples that exceeded water quality objectives. When compared to the OEHHA 21 ug/kg threshold for consumption, there were 11 exceedances out of 12 fish tissue samples taken over all the sampling years. When compared to the NAS 1000 ug/kg threshold for aquatic life, there were 2 exceedances out of 12 fish tissue samples taken. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. At a minimum, 11 out of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8276

LOE ID:	5587
Pollutant:	DDT
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix:	Tissue
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	12
Number of Exceedances:	2
Data and Information Type:	Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 2 fish fillet samples collected at 1 location exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. Exceedances were found in; 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/21/1986, and; 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 5/20/1986 (TSMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) database. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Sacramento, CA.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 1000 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).
Guideline Reference:	National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.
Temporal Representation:	Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. Exceedances were found in samples collected from 5/20/1986 through 5/21/1986.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
LOE ID:	5433
Pollutant:	DDT
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix:	Tissue
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	12
Number of Exceedances:	11
Data and Information Type:	Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 4 fish fillet samples and 7 whole fish samples collected at 1 location exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. Exceedances were found in; 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/21/1986; 1 channel catfish single fish fillet sample collected on 10/20/1987; 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 5/20/1986; 1 carp single fish fillet sample collected on 10/20/1987; 2 tilapia whole fish composite samples collected on 10/30/1996, and 12/08/1999; 1 redbelly tilapia whole fish composite sample collected on 10/24/1995; 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample collected on 10/24/1995, and; 3 red shiner whole fish composite samples collected on 9/16/1992, 10/24/1995, and 11/06/2000 (TSMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) database. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Sacramento, CA.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 21 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).
Guideline Reference:	Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.
Temporal Representation:	Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 5/20/1986 through 11/06/2000.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
LOE ID:	4994
Pollutant:	.alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | Aldrin | Chlordane | DDT | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Mercury
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide, and 1.4 ug/l Mercury (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).

DECISION ID	8277
Pollutant:	Dieldrin
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2021
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. No water samples exceed the water quality objective. When compared to the CTR 0.24 ug/l threshold for aquatic life, there were no exceedances out of 7 total water samples taken over all the sampling years. There were six fish tissue samples that exceeded water quality objectives. When compared to the OEHHA 0.46 ug/kg threshold for consumption, there were 6 exceedances out of 6 fish tissue samples taken. When compared to the NAS 100 ug/kg threshold for aquatic life, there were no exceedances out of 12 fish tissue samples taken. No sediment samples exceed the water quality objective. When compared to the sediment quality guideline 61.8 ug/g threshold, there were no exceedances out of 9 sediment samples taken over all the sampling years. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. At a minimum, 6 out of 6 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8277

LOE ID:	4994
Pollutant:	.alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | Aldrin | Chlordane | DDT | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Mercury
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide, and 1.4 ug/l Mercury (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
LOE ID:	5102
Pollutant:	Dieldrin | Endrin | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Sediment
Matrix:	Sediment
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	9
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Nine sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, and 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) (Macdonald et al, 2000).
Guideline Reference:	Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Nine sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location in. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).
LOE ID:	5598
Pollutant:	Dieldrin
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix:	Tissue
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	12
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) database. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Sacramento, CA.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).
Guideline Reference:	National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.
Temporal Representation:	Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).
QAPP Information Reference(s):
LOE ID:	5434
Pollutant:	Dieldrin
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix:	Tissue
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	6
Number of Exceedances:	6
Data and Information Type:	Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. Three fish fillet samples and 3 whole fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 2 fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 2 fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples collected at 1 location exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. Exceedances were found in; 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/21/1986; 1 carp single fish fillet sample collected on 10/20/1987; 1 tilapia whole fish composite sample collected on 12/08/1999; 1 redbelly tilapia whole fish composite sample collected on 10/24/1995, and; 2 red shiner whole fish composite samples collected on 10/24/1995, and 11/06/2000 (TSMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) database. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Sacramento, CA.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 0.46 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).
Guideline Reference:	Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.
Temporal Representation:	Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 5/21/1986 through 11/06/2000.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

DECISION ID	8278
Pollutant:	PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2021
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. There were 4 fish tissue samples that exceeded water quality objectives. When compared to the OEHHA 3.6 ug/kg threshold for consumption, there were 4 exceedances out of 4 total fish tissue samples taken over all the sampling years. When compared to the NAS 500 ug/kg threshold for aquatic life, there were no exceedances out of 12 fish tissue samples taken. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. At a minimum, 4 out of 4 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8278

LOE ID:	5435
Pollutant:	PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix:	Tissue
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	4
Number of Exceedances:	4
Data and Information Type:	Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. Four fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 1 fish fillet samples and 3 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 1 fish fillet samples and 3 whole fish samples collected at 1 location exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. Exceedances were found in 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/21/1986, 1 tilapia whole fish composite sample collected on 12/08/1999, and 2 red shiner whole fish composite samples collected on 10/24/1995, and 11/06/2000 (TSMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) database. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Sacramento, CA.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 3.6 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).
Guideline Reference:	Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.
Temporal Representation:	Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 5/21/1986 through 11/06/2000.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
LOE ID:	5644
Pollutant:	PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix:	Tissue
Fraction:	Total
Beneficial Use:	Warm Freshwater Habitat
Number of Samples:	12
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) database. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Sacramento, CA.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Palm Desert, CA.
Evaluation Guideline:	National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 500 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).
Guideline Reference:	National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.
Temporal Representation:	Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.

DECISION ID	8298
Pollutant:	1,2-Dichloropropane
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant
Weight of Evidence:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 8298

LOE ID:	4997
Pollutant:	.alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .alpha.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | .beta.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride) | .beta.-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Dissolved
Beneficial Use:	Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
Number of Samples:	7
Number of Exceedances:	0
Data and Information Type:	Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)
Data Used to Asses Water Quality:	Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).
Data Reference:	Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).
Objective/Criterion Reference:	Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
Spatial Representation:	Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.
Temporal Representation:	Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):	Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version).